Here are some more photos of Halle Berry and Nahla on vacation in Maui on Easter. Last week, we covered some photos of Halle, Nahla and Olivier on the beach too. Fame/Flynet says that Halle took Nahla to an Easter Egg hunt and that Nahla was super-excited about it, and then the two ladies spent the rest of the day with Olivier at the hotel pool. Personally, I would LOVE to have Halle’s purse (OMG) and I would take her cover-up in a blue, green or black. If anyone has the designer IDs on the purse or the cover-up, please tell me!

Of course, I always feel a bit queasy about publishing photos of Halle and Nahla. Even though both Halle and Gabriel Aubry used candid paparazzi photo shoots to get their respective “good parent” images out during their custody dispute (and BOTH had a hand in it), Halle has been vocal for a while about her discomfort with paparazzi taking photos of Nahla. I’m actually surprised that Halle isn’t completely freaking out on the paparazzo taking these photos. But there’s a little hint that something more might be coming. Page Six says Halle wants to go another legal route:

Halle Berry is reaching out to her famous friends, including Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner, to help her block photographers who take unauthorized pictures of celebrity children, says a source. We’re told Berry, who lost a court battle to ex-boyfriend Gabriel Aubry to move her daughter Nahla to France where they have strong anti-paparazzi laws, wants to lobby for a legal ban on pictures of young children of celebs here in the US. Berry’s rep didn’t get back to us.

If photo agencies were required to blur out the faces of children, I wouldn’t be too peeved about it. But the problem is… no matter what celebrities say, their children are now a part of the Celebrity Ecosystem, and “Celebrity Parenting” has become a HUGE business. Think about the celebrities who sell photos of their babies. Think about the celebrity moms who make a second career out of motherhood, and how “happy family” photo-ops are part of the business. And I can only imagine what someone like Jennifer Garner said when and if Halle reached out to her. Garner’s “happy-family” photo ops are some of the best and most consistent in the industry. Those photo-ops were such a big part of getting her husband the Oscar this year. So… while it would definitely be an interesting debate to have, if Halle is really going to pursue these paparazzi laws, Halle should know that she’s shutting down a HUGE business.

I don’t believe Halley honestly would want this passed because she use the paps for her own purposes. And asking Jen Garner to support a bill is like asking a smoker to support banning cigarettes. I’d feel sorry for the parents if it didn’t seem like so many were willingly using the paparazzi to further their own agenda when it suits them

Ok, so here’s what I don’t get. From what I know, celebrities can demand that papers websites etc blur the child’s photo in order to protect their privacy. Other celebrities like HB didn’t. So could HB, for instance, demand that Nahla’s face is blurred in the future?

Considering that they have been papped just as much as during the Oscar campaign (and yes, they include Ben) and the oscars were over a month ago, I’m not sure what to believe. I think its possible that because their daily routine is so predictable that the paps just know when school, karate, etc is

I just read an interview this morning where Jen says that she leaves her house and parked outside their home everyday is like 7 paps. She also said that nannies in parks, etc tip off the paps. Anyways in the interview she defended Bens Oscar speech to her If you’re interested kaiser or cb

I agree with you. Their schedule is easy to figure out and people seem to really love pictures of the Affleck family. It’s all supply and demand, the paps leave alone the people whose pictures don’t generate much attention after a while. The Afflecks always have generated attention. They especially did when there were talks of him winning an Oscar, hence the increased pictures. Not that they don’t play along but I don’t let the anti-Affleck sentiment confuse the situation.

For personal reason, the Afflecks set schedule seems to work for them. (imo Young children do best in a stable, predictable environment) Unfortunately it’s also made them sitting ducks for the army of paps that follow them around LA. Karate, ballet, school – the paps know just where and when to find them.

Kota – Was this a tv interview or one in print? I’m just curious because (depending on the publication) a lot of so-called print interviews are bogus — quotes taken out of context, questionable sources, etc. If it’s on tv, at least you hear and see the words coming out of her mouth.

Thanks Kota
I read it and notwithstanding my belief that everyone has an “agenda”, Garner seems genuine and sincere. I totally believe what she said about the paps and can’t fathom how/why some people think she actually alerts them as to her whereabouts!!!! Yeah, sure, she wants to voluntarily expose her children to these degenerates….

They totally played the game, now they have to keep up the routine for a while because it looks MORE staged if it just stops the day after the Oscars. Then they’d look worse in the long run for pimping out their kids. Remember the pictures of Ben getting all pissy outside of the kids’ school? And yet he left out the FRONT door knowing full well there were photographers. Like there aren’t other exits? And seriously, how desperate are you to hear about the Affleck kids? They’re cute, but how compelled would you actually be to read about the Affleck/Garners at the farmers market?

@evyn is right. This bullsh it about the Afflecks being on an Oscar campaign with pap pics is so freaking ridiculous and false and obviously so. In Feb, CB (blogger AND comments) was all “Can’t wait until the oscars are over so the endless flow of Affleck family pap shots will stop.” And I said at the time that you all were delusional because the volume of Affleck fam pap shots has not changed one iota since Violet was born and it won’t change now either. And BOOM, here we are in April, and I’m proven right.

CB needs to face it: Ben Affleck earned his Oscar through doing exceptional work, and the paps are going to follow him and his family REGARDLESS of what they have to promote.

You have to be really naive to not see that certain celebs call or actively engage with paps to further their image. Whether its for an Oscar campaign or promotion for movies or image control.

I am sure all families, “normal” ones or celeb ones, have certain routines. Especially when they have kids. You hardly ever see Johnny Depp, Matt Damon, Tobey Maguire or RDJ pics with their kids and all of them are huge stars whose private life and cute baby pictures should be extremely interesting for sick gossip junkies.

It’s always the same celebs who do it. Affleck/Garner, Witherspoon, Holmes, Berry.

In Britain we have that law. No photos of the kids without parental consent. That’s why you rarely see photos of Brit celebs or if you do, their faces are blurred.

Of course this law isn’t international, so papers eg DM use legal loophole where if the law doesn’t exist in the country that pictures of kids were taken or if it isn’t enforced in that country, they can buy and print the pics.

That said, I was so uncomfortable to see how they stalked Anna Paquin to get pics of her twins. There was a near weekly article trolling(nee harrassing) her about the kids’ details and pictures. And of course they got the pics in the end.

All of this said, it’s hard to take Halle Berry seriously when she’s encouraged the paps for personal gain.

Pictures posted in those papers are blurred, but once they are sold and purchased in the states they can be seen. I highly doubt Brad or Angie gave permission for pictures to be unblurred. that makes no sense. Beside their kids are not photographed a lot anyway. Not saying ever just rarely. I have seen pictures of Celebs in the UK and the faces are not blurred.

besides it all depends on the Celebrity. If the parents are big stars then yes the pictures will be taken. If there is not a market for the pictures then the pap isn’t going to make much money. It is supply and demand. There is not a demand for some celebrity child’s pictures. So no you don’t see them.

Perhaps you didn’t undertand what I wrote because the law does exist. I understand the law of supply and demand, but tell me when was the last time you saw a pic of Madonna/GOOP/Kate Moss/Jude Law’s kids photographed on British soil? Kate Moss’s daughter was in American Vogue at her wedding which was open to media for walk from church before any pics were posted worldwide.

As Kaiser points out, there is a huge market for celeb sprog. Even for dlisters. However it isn’t a random coincidence that British celeb’s kids are blurred out when they are on British soil.

I’ve also read that those laws become a bit tricky when a celeb has sold pictures or allowed official photos to be published. Go through the list of celebs who have done just that and you see it’s very long. From A-Listers to Jessica Simpson to the Jersey Shore. Just think, Brad and Angelina (who I like, but they) give exclusives to People whenever they have a movie to promote. Tom, Katie and Suri in Vanity Fair? They exposed Suri to the press everywhere, making no attempts to protect her. The Beckhams make deals with tabs. Even Drew Barrymore, who has always scolded the paps, sold photos of her daughter. I saw pap photos of Kate Moss’ daughter unblurred at the Daily Mail for the first time the other day. But I’ve seen her face b/f in Vogue for Moss’ wedding.

Marion Cotillard is very vocal about this. She told Amy Adams to move to France b/c of the laws. A few weeks after I read that interview I saw photos of her out w/ her family, son included. Yeah his face was blurred out. But Marion was still papped. The photos were still published. And if they hadn’t been taken, purchased and published first in France or the UK, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference anyhow.

I honestly think if more celebrities felt like, IDK, George Clooney? (I had to reach back to post-Princess Diana to name someone), something would’ve been done a long time ago. There are just way too many celebs who complain about it and then they post all their business on Twitter and Facebook or they overshare in interviews or participate in obvious pap setups. Celebs want to have it all-ways but at their convenience and control. Even if they end up using their kids. I mean, does Berry get press for anything other than (her looks) and private life? And she’s not the only one or the worst. It’s like Eva Mendes complaining about privacy for her DOG and then talking about him on national tv. Halle did the exact same thing last week talking about Nahla bragging to her friends that her mom met Elmo. Using your kids as part of your brand (like The Beckhams and Paltrow has begun to do) or casually mentioning them for talk show anecdotes is just an extension of the same thing.

The thing is that freedom of the press is about as absolute as it gets in the U.S., and I would hate to see the First Amendment weakened to protect some famewhores’ kids, when there’s only interest in the kids because the parents pimp them out so much (see: Halle fighting for custody via TMZ, and Garner’s career as Realest Mom in Hollywood.)

The fawning over celeb kids by grown adults who don’t know them is super creepy though – look how much interest there is in posts with the Jolie-Pitt or Affleck kids. Personally I prefer my celeb gossip to be snark about adults.

But children do not have the same rights as adults. So they also have greater protections (or should) because they are not legally responsible for their behavior. Their parents are. I agree that you shouldn’t be able to censor the photos of the parents. But children really do fall under a different set of rules that has been upheld by the courts repeatedly. If not, children would be allowed to drink, drive, vote, give consent, etc.

I think it’s how famous/likeable the celebrity is. The Affleck’s are likeable and popular, have an easy, predictable schedule, so even if they were calling the paps, the paps would know where they were.

The Jolie-Pitts aren’t as cut and dry. They’re both huge stars, and they actually do manage to evade the paparazzi often. The only reason why it seems they court the paparazzi is because when pictures are taken, everyone carries them.

@amber
I’ve seen pictures of Marion and her adorable son (unblurred) at several horse riding tournaments in France. So, even if these stars moved to France or the UK the unblurred photos of their children will still be seen in the US.
Doesn’t that still defeat the purpose since most make movies for American based studios, unless they live, work and stay in those countries.
Besides, there are star children that have an International appeal (JP’s, Beckhams) and to a lesser degree, Stefani-Rossdale’s, Afflecks. I don’t believe the paps would care as much about Nahla if there wasn’t drama around her mother.

I personally wouldn’t know what Jude Laws or Kate Moss’ children look like unless there was a caption underneath. So I suspect there is no demand at least in the US. Goop’s spawn are products of a boring, unexciting couple.

Exactly. I think the location matters a little bit. But as you said, some unblurred photos of Marion’s son were taken in France. Just like I’ve seen unblurred photos of Johnny Depp’s kids. They only seem to get blurred if they are initially purchased and published in the UK or France. But again, the paps are still there. The parent is still going to be papped.

I never buy the supply and demand argument. I think it’s just an excuse. You’re telling me that if the paps could get pictures of the Jolie-Pitt kids or other international stars everyday they wouldn’t be published? But no, go to the Daily Mail on any given day, who’s being caught all the time, it’s Alyson Hannigan, (like you say) Gwen Stefani, Hilary Duff, Selma Blair, Ali Larter, etc. And the articles about them don’t get any more clicks and comments than others. And that’s not even taking into account the many celebs who manage to avoid the paps entirely. I would love a distance law for all and for kids to be left out of it completely. But there’s too much evidence leading me to believe that most celebs don’t care. Rather they encourage the press and use their kids.

Pretty sure it’s the law in Australia, too. Nobody – paps, schools, nobody – can publish pics of a minor without a parent or guardian’s consent. When I was in my first year of university, still aged 17, I had to get a form to take home to my parents when my faculty wanted to take some photos of a prac and use them in official publications.

I think if Halle actually said this, it is because she is still trying to convince us that the proposed move to Paris had NOTHING AT ALL to do with trying to hurt Gabriel Aubry and keep him out out of Nahla’s life!!! It was only to do with the dreaded paps taking unauthorized photos. Halle feels compelled to bring this all up again, just in case anyone was wondering why she hasn’t griped about the paps since the Judge denied her request, to “prove” to us that she is still fighting the fight! JMHO.

@MW – Exactly or it is another nefarious plan to get her daughter all to herself. I don’t believe anything this woman puts out anymore. Her court history speaks for itself. Let’s have this conversation about this woman when her daughter is an adult and then we can all agree or disagree if she really about whose intersts she had at heart all along. I agree with others on here wondering if this headline and article is some sort of April Fools Day joke.

Back room deals, favors called in, an endless promo tour, plenty of HW style schmoozing, and George Clooney won that Best Picture Oscar. The same old pap pics of Ben’s kids we’ve seen both before and after campaign time had very little to do with it.

I believe Halle is genuinely upset the move to France fell through. She might surprise us all with her next move.

I agree. I don’t give a crap that some celebrity parents encourage it – it’s not them I’m bothered about. It should be straight up illegal to take or sell images of kids in that way. I’m a hypocrite because I like cute celeb kids pics as much as the next person, but the reality is that they’re stalking children, and it shouldn’t be allowed.

In all honesty I think some framework should be put around the paps in general, anyway. Their behaviour wouldn’t be legal in lots of other contexts – it’s harassment, plain and simple.

I think as long as the pictures are ONLY taken while the child is in public (ie: NOT in their (or their family’s) private residence/yard), only in places like public parks or walking down the street outside of gated communities) then ‘freedom of the press applies’.

Halle – You can’t have it both ways, girl. Can’t use the paps to further your own agenda, then turn around & try to pick & choose based on your convenience.

But I honestly think this whole thing is BS. Maybe just a ploy on Halle’s part to score points with the public, in order to look like a more protective, outspoken mother concerned only for the well being of her child.

there should be a clear line of age AND parental consent until the kid is a legal adult because there are parents like Halle/Gabriel or in extremis the Kardashians, who are using the kids for personal gain, then you have the parents who are famous but don’t want their kids in the spotlight (eg Demi Moore as an unexpected example).

It shouldn’t be a press free for all simply because the kids have famous parents because the kids didn’t choose to become famous, the parents did.

To illustrate my point,google articles on Anna Paquin on the DM. She has been harrassed continually on there for refusing to divulge details of her babies. Should Anna never leave the house because the DM demands to see the babies when she doesn’t want to show them? Anna isn’t a famewhore celebrity nor is she on a Brangelina level of fame which makes the DM’s campaign inexplicable.

@LAK & Bluhare – I completely agree. (Hope I didn’t come across as defending the paps in this case).

I was just trying to figure out how a ban on taking pictures of children out in public could -not- violate the 1st amendment. If such a law was passed, they’d simply go underground & continue taking & selling pics. Only difference is they’d have to be much more ‘stealthy’ to get the pics, which could lead to dangerous situations.

It’s everyone’s… who buys magazines or tabloids featuring a celeb’s child…fault. People’s interest gives them a reason to focus on them to begin with, & steadily rising the value of each pic.

Can everyone stop with the supposed Oscar campaign? It’s obvious that nothing has changed from when you all accused him of it. He’s been seen almost every day with Jen and/or the kids. Literally the only thing that’s changed it he used to get dressed up and now he wears jeans. Two weeks ago he was seen out with them every single day. The Oscars ended a month ago. He’s not working right now and won’t be working for a while as none of his projects are set to be filmed for a long time. When he’s not working he’s seen and when he is, not so much. I don’t think people realize how much work it is to direct, act and produce all in the same movie. It takes a lot of time and work, of course he’s not going to be seen out running errands. Argo went into theaters in October or whatever and he’s been seen ever since then because his work in the film finished so he’s been home. Not a hard concept to understand but there just seem to be a lot of Affleck haters.

As much as I don’t care for Ben A. I too wish people would stop with the Oscar Campaign nonsense. I recall Monique refused to go to any Pre-Oscar events unless she was paid. She still won an Oscar. Sean Penn, a great family man? He allegedly abused his first wife (Madonna), cheated on his 2nd, and now his son used ethnic slurs towards a pap. Won 2 oscars.

Neither has Jean duJardin who won best Actor in 2012.. Sean Penn won two oscars, Jamie Fox is still making films. You get my point.. Ben doesn’t have to exploit a great family life to get nominated for an Oscar. Let’s use Elisabeth Taylor as an example, 7 husbands, affairs, and two Oscars. There was an expose on Deadline.com and what did the anom voter say.. Steven Speilberg is hated, because he seems to have it all. No vote for Steven for Best Director, they couldn’t pronounce the young black girls name, so no vote for her.. So, the Oscar voting is not about if you’re being seen as a family man. it’s if the old fuggy’s can’t pronounce your name or you’re seen as having it all. Cary Grant, Paul Newman, Brad Pitt, Robert Redford.. They felt guilty about Denzel Washington.. black guilt, no black actor won since Sidney Poitier in the 60′s. . Denzel should’ve won for Malcolm X or Hurricane, not Training Day. Russell Crowe for the Insider, not Gladiator. So essentially, the year Russell won, Denzel should’ve won, the year Denzel won, Russell shouldv’e won. Both, great Actors.
I’m sorry Brad will win for not his best performance but because the old foggy’s will feel its his time or will give him some legendary BS award like Cary Grant. Okay we can now award you.

freedom of the press should only apply to public figures and children are no public figures.
in countries like france and germany the right of the child outweighs the freedom of press and i think thats good.

what we should focus on is politicians trying to control the press, not make sure some celeb kids can be photographed.

i dont see it happening as it only affects a very tiny percentage of people and most people feel entitled to know every detail of celebs lives.

I can understand a law such as that to protect the children but for some of these celebs if they did not have children we would not see them. Some do use their children for publicity, like so many celebs/wannabe celebs showing up at the same pumpkin patch.

Don’t worry, in France, celebrities can still sell their children’photos to tabloids. What’s forbidden is photo without the prior consent of the parents. So people can have it both way: no photos when they don’t want to, but some photos when it’s convenient for them. Isn’t that nice? (Unless you can’t tell, it’s sarcasm)

I don’t think the celebrities have problems with the paparazzi taking photos of their children as long as they keep their distance.
Shouting out the kids name and taking close up shots seems to be the problem.
There should be a law that they have to keep a certain distance to take photos.
I can’t imagine what these kids go through everyday because their parents are famous.

I really wish we had the same “blurred photo” law here that exists in France (or is it England?) Personally, I’ve grown really creeped out at the amount of ink and importance US Weekly gives to kids of celebrities. It’s really gotten out of hand. The kids aren’t celebs and shouldn’t be considered as such (we wonder why kids of celebs grow up so entitled?) Jennifer Garner worked 16 hour days on Alias. Ben Affleck has directed several movies. What exactly has Violet Affleck done to be famous? Has she acted in, written, produced, or directed something?

The whole “celeb kid” culture has gotten totally out of hand, and I feel like as a consumer of this stuff, I’m part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I hate to pull a “won’t somebody think of the children?” But seriously, *won’t* somebody? They deserve their privacy. I used to think Michael Jackson was a weirdo for putting his kids in masks, but he was really ahead of the game.

I think there should be a law across the boards that ALL children of celebs must have their faces blurred until they’re 14 or 16 or 18…whatever age ppl can agree is an age at which a child can consent. Because right now, these kids can’t consent. And this would also protect them from their parents who pimp them out to the press to make a buck.

Berry is so full of it. She has no problem using the paps to photograph her kid and her creepy boyfriend to show how happy Nahla is to have him as her daddy. Think she’d want Nahla’s face blurred out then? That being said, I would love to see some restrictions put on paps becuz of their reckless and rude behavior which affects everyone, not just celebs. Try having them knock down your small child in leg braces, and then when you’re kneeling down trying to help them back up (not easy with the leg braces), they step on your leg in their race to get past you to chase some dumb celeb. Or smack your sister by flinging their massive cameras over their shoulders. Or jump out in front of your car, or stop traffic cold. I’ve seen it all. Celeb children don’t need protection from the paps, but the rest of do. I would love to see some kind of a pap law that fines them when they screw with everyone else.

The same thing applies to celeb bodyguards. They can be total assholes as well. We also had a bg knock down our disabled child and then snarled at me to “pick it up quick” at a movie premiere years ago. My husband tore after him and had to be restrained. There was a long aftermath to this.

btw, my elderly mama lives in Westlake Village, and Britney just moved in nearby. Now there are paps everywhere there she says & Britbrit is papped almost daily. I grew up there and there have always been tons of celebs living there, but paps never bothered with it cuz its a family type community, but Brit brit has brought them with her.

Let’s be honest here:
the combined political power of hollywood stars is such that IF THEY WANTED, then California would have had a law similar to some European countries in which you cannot publish children’s faces without the parents consent.

This is very simple.
While I do believe some actors are not interested in such exposure and that’s why we never saw Tom Hanks’ children when they were young etc., many of these actors use their children as part of their image and as means to draw attention.

Funniest thing I’ve read all day. Jennifer Garner isn’t going to do anything to keep paparazzi from photographing her kids. She’d be yelling “freedom of the press!” louder than anyone else.

And I don’t keep tabs on Halle because she’s crazier than a bed bug, but if she was that concerned for her child’s welfare, she’d move out of LA, and she wouldn’t talk about her in interviews. Didn’t she also call TMZ (or whomever) to take pictures of Olivier Martinez after that fight between him and Gabriel?

I remember when the former President of Spain’s daughters’ picture was published (Zapatero, not the current pres. Rajoy). The Spanish public had never seen pictures of them before because Zapatero was fiercely protective of them. They aren’t part of the “happy family presidential image” like Sasha and Malia Obama are over here in the States.

Anyways, Zapatero’s daughters’ picture got published because, guess what? He made the mistake of letting them be photographed in an official picture with the Obamas while on a visit to the States. It was for some kind of event dinner in NYC and I don’t think Zapatero realized the picture would be uploaded to the State Department’s Flickr account.

Well the result of the picture being published online meant the Spanish media seized it and well, unfortunately made fun of the daughers’ appearance. If you google the picture, you can see why. Zapatero’s daughters look rather Goth and look like they belong in a Harry Potter movie (with comical deer in the headlights expression). And it’s all the more hilarious because the Obamas are so photogenic and Obama has his arm around one of the daughters.

People should have a say in whether they want photos of their children published in magazines (or at least the option to have them blurred out). Rajoy would never have let his daughters into the picture had he realized it would og viral. Children are not part of the public domain (unless they decide to get into the biz). They are cute but I would not be disappointed to have the children of American celebrities with blurred out faces.

Halle has always been happy to have photogs around as long they are praising her and how great she is, i.e. manipulation.
She has come out as a pathological liar with malintent towards so many people and well, no one believes her anymore.